[PTA Playtest] Mistkatonic

[pete_darby]

Well, I'm wondering whether "conflict" is the best term for the roll: Complication, maybe? Though the idea does come from "dramatic conflict", which may be quite different to someone used to conflict being expressed purely in, ah, physical or personal confrontation terms.

Maybe we could do with something in the rules that "conflict" can be internal as well as external... I think that's the "oomph" that powers most character scenes, and gets you the "good people sometimes make bad choices" and "bad people do good despite themselves" plots that drove, inter alia, the whole Buffy - Spike relationship...

[Alan]

I don't think a conflict roll is required in every scene.  Some scenes work very well just to set up potential conflict.  And without such scenes, sequels  where premise is addressed and conflict is rolled are not possible.  For this reason, I think both Plot and Character focus scenes should leave conflict rolls optional.

Dice-roll-optional scenes can be initiated by a player or producer.  They need not even include a PC.  For example, a short scene revealing something to the audience about opponents' plans, for example, can f

However, one thing we learned playtesting PTA is that the emulation of actual TV can be taken too far for the intended design of the game.  For example: trying to hit all the development points of the Act sequence can conflict with the random nature of conflict rolls.  

Rolling a conflict in PTA produces an emotional climax for the players.  It asks the players to make an emotional investment in addressing premise - the "so what?" that is a key element of narrativist play.  At the same time, emphasizing the reproduction of the conventions of an hour long TV show can stiffle narrativism by prioritizing hitting those points over rolling conflict.

This points out one of the differences between producing a one hour TV episode and playing a role-playing game: the show is a designed product, while the game is created and guided on the fly - with random input both from dice rolls and player inspiration.  

In fact, this issue is a dial that drifts the game from narrativism into simulationism.  The dice rolls are _required_ for meaningful premise addressing, and this in turn demands players give up rigid adherance to reproducing TV conventions.  Instead, TV conventions should be seen as tools to grab and use when the conflict resolution happens to point towards one.

[Matt Wilson]

However, one thing we learned playtesting PTA is that the emulation of actual TV can be taken too far for the intended design of the game. For example: trying to hit all the development points of the Act sequence can conflict with the random nature of conflict rolls.

In fact, this issue is a dial that drifts the game from narrativism into simulationism. The dice rolls are _required_ for meaningful premise addressing, and this in turn demands players give up rigid adherance to reproducing TV conventions. Instead, TV conventions should be seen as tools to grab and use when the conflict resolution happens to point towards one.

It's never been a requirement of the game that the players follow an act sequence. It's just a good idea: Real television scripts follow a certain format that's divided into "acts," and you can use this format if you like, to help structure your game session.

However, I can't think of an example of play where TV conventions interfered with meaningful premise addressing. Is there something from the Spacehunter game that you're thinking of?

[Matt Wilson]

Maybe we could do with something in the rules that "conflict" can be internal as well as external... I think that's the "oomph" that powers most character scenes, and gets you the "good people sometimes make bad choices" and "bad people do good despite themselves" plots that drove, inter alia, the whole Buffy - Spike relationship...

You're right. That should be a specific example. But Alan picked up on that vibe in a great way in the last playtest we did.

James' character had been injected with what boiled down to a "psycho serum," and Alan says: "This is a conflict to see if you listen to the crazy voices in your head that are telling you to kill Matt's character." Zing!

[Alan]

However, one thing we learned playtesting PTA is that the emulation of actual TV can be taken too far for the intended design of the game. For example: trying to hit all the development points of the Act sequence can conflict with the random nature of conflict rolls.

However, I can't think of an example of play where TV conventions interfered with meaningful premise addressing. Is there something from the Spacehunter game that you're thinking of?

I started out intending to GM to act structure much more rigidly, but I quickly realized that wouldn't be healthy.

Other than that, I didn't see it in Starhunter.  However, I've read comments from other games that seem to indicate they're at least thinking of applying act structure and other TV conventions more rigidly.  I just want to place a word of caution: that will change the game significantly and probably stiffle the style of play the designer intended.